Literature DB >> 18415113

A survey of satisfaction and use among patients fitted with a BAHA.

Stéphane Tringali1, Alexis Bozorg Grayeli, Didier Bouccara, Olivier Sterkers, Sandrine Chardon, Christian Martin, Christian Dubreuil.   

Abstract

We compared the indices of satisfaction and use among patients wearing an osseo-integrated prosthesis BAHA (bone anchored hearing aid) according to the indications: conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL) and patients with single side deafness (SSD). The study was carried out among patients wearing a BAHA fitted in one of three French departments between November 2001 and November 2005. Each patient received a postal questionnaire relating to the ease of use and the daily utilization period of the prosthesis, as well as a satisfaction rating (from 1 to 10) evaluating improvement in quality of life, overall satisfaction, improvement in sound localization and satisfaction from the aesthetic point of view. In total, 170 out of 231 patients responded to the questionnaire (response rate of 73.5%). The average age at the time of fitting of the BAHA was 56 years (18-79 years). The SSD group was composed of 118 patients (69.4%): 92 following surgery for vestibular schwannoma, 2 following surgery for meningioma and 24 with "other" causes (e.g. idiopathic sudden deafness, sensori neural hearing loss complicating surgery of the middle ear). The CHL group was composed of 52 patients (30.5%): 44 patients with a chronic otitis and 8 with a malformation of the middle ear. The average duration of use of the prosthesis was 22 months (3-72 months). The average utilization period was higher than 8 h per day in 48.5% of cases. There was a significant difference between the two groups concerning the quality of life (p < 0.0001), general satisfaction (p < 0.0001) and sound localization (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference concerning aesthetics. Among the patients of the CHL group, the levels of satisfaction and quality of life are comparable with recent data in the literature with scores of good or very good. The BAHA thus remains one of the methods of choice for hearing rehabilitation in this group of patients. Among the patients of the SSD group, the levels of satisfaction and quality of life are significantly poorer than in the CHL group, but remain generally good with the exception of sound localization. The treatment of SSD patients with a BAHA is interesting. A study comparing the BAHA with the WIFI CROS system is justified in order to ascertain the respective advantages of these two treatment options.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18415113     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0676-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  16 in total

1.  Evaluation of implant losses and skin reactions around extraoral bone-anchored implants: A 0- to 8-year follow-up.

Authors:  R A Reyes; A Tjellström; G Granström
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  [Prosthetic rehabilitation of unilateral anakusis. Study with stereoaudiometry].

Authors:  F M Vaneecloo; J N Hanson; C Laroche; C Vincent; J Dehaussy
Journal:  Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac       Date:  2000-12

3.  [The monaural pseudo-stereophonic hearing aid (BAHA) in unilateral total deafness: a study of 29 patients].

Authors:  F M Vaneecloo; I Ruzza; J N Hanson; T Gérard; J Dehaussy; M Cory; C Arrouet; C Vincent
Journal:  Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord)       Date:  2001

4.  Bone-anchored hearing aids in unilateral inner ear deafness: an evaluation of audiometric and patient outcome measurements.

Authors:  Myrthe K S Hol; Arjan J Bosman; Ad F M Snik; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Cor W R J Cremers
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Long-term results of bone-anchored hearing aid recipients who had previously used air-conduction hearing aids.

Authors:  Myrthe K S Hol; Ad F M Snik; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Cor W R J Cremers
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-04

6.  The bone-anchored hearing aid. Principal design and a psychoacoustical evaluation.

Authors:  B Håkansson; A Tjellström; U Rosenhall; P Carlsson
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1985 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.494

7.  Bone-anchored hearing aids in unilateral inner ear deafness.

Authors:  Arjan J Bosman; Myrthe K S Hol; Ad F M Snik; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Cor W R J Cremers
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.494

8.  Localization by unilateral BAHA users.

Authors:  Jack J Wazen; Soha N Ghossaini; Jaclyn B Spitzer; Mary Kuller
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  Hearing rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid: results in 40 patients.

Authors:  L R Lustig; H A Arts; D E Brackmann; H F Francis; T Molony; C A Megerian; G F Moore; K M Moore; T Morrow; W Potsic; J T Rubenstein; S Srireddy; C A Syms; G Takahashi; D Vernick; P A Wackym; J K Niparko
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a 14-year experience.

Authors:  Khaled Badran; Dan Bunstone; Arvind K Arya; Ranganathan Suryanarayanan; Neil Mackinnon
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  2 in total

1.  Results and complications of the Baha system (bone-anchored hearing aid).

Authors:  G Ricci; A Della Volpe; M Faralli; F Longari; M Gullà; N Mansi; A Frenguelli
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Bone-anchored hearing aids in conductive and mixed hearing losses: why do patients reject them?

Authors:  Richard T K Siau; Baljeet Dhillon; Derrick Siau; Kevin M J Green
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 2.503

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.